If lots of data are being logged really quickly, then I could see that
happening.

On 13 February 2017 at 14:20, Apache <[email protected]> wrote:

> The only threads in Log4j that I can think of that are short lived are the
> threads that compress the files at rollover. That would only consume a lot
> of CPU if rollover is happening a lot.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Feb 13, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Christopher Schultz <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Ronald,
> >
> > On 2/13/17 2:29 PM, DiFrango, Ronald wrote:
> >> Yeah, I’m aware and agreed, but this is done in the Apache HTTP Client
> Component’s Code, not ours and existed as-is with log4j2 in ALL the
> versions we’ve been using.
> >>
> >> That said, I think this is a red herring and it’s still true that at
> least for our application any version of log4j2 beyond 2.5 consumes more
> CPU that 2.5 this is a REST based APi using Tomcat+Jersey+Spring [again
> nothing has changed] and processing around 50 transactions per second with
> a guarantee of a minimum of 1 log record to request.
> >>
> >> We just haven’t identified WHERE its causing the issue.
> >>
> >> One additional data point, we are using the bridging JAR’s for the
> following as not all 3rd party libraries follow any standard on what they
> use:
> >>
> >>       Classis log4j
> >>       SLF4J
> >>       commons-logging
> >
> >
> > You mentioned that lots of threads were being created and that they were
> > short-lived. What code is creating those threads? You never said...
> >
> > -chris
> >
> >> On 2/13/17, 2:11 PM, "Apache" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>    The log.debug call will exit quickly, but if it is constructing a
> large message that will happen anyway unless one of the standard techniques
> (like wrapping in a logger.isDebugEnabled call) is used to avoid it.
> Constructing debug Strings can be expensive.
> >>
> >>    Ralph
> >>
> >>> On Feb 13, 2017, at 10:58 AM, DiFrango, Ronald <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> No we are not and since it’s a log.debug() it should just get dropped
> on the floor before any sort of copying occurs, right?
> >>>
> >>> Ron DiFrango
> >>>
> >>> On 2/13/17, 12:50 PM, "Matt Sicker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>   Are you logging that info?
> >>>
> >>>   On 13 February 2017 at 11:46, DiFrango, Ronald <
> >>>   [email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> All,
> >>>>
> >>>> One thing we just noticed is that we are using Apache’s HTTP
> connection
> >>>> pooling for our downstream calls and in our latest performance run is
> that
> >>>> the READ operation on org.apache.http.impl.conn.LoggingInputStream
> seems
> >>>> to be taking a bulk of the time.
> >>>>
> >>>> If I look at the code, once the HTTP client reads the byte stream it
> >>>> issues a log.debug which could be a large payload, I wonder if that’s
> what
> >>>> is causing the issue?
> >>>>
> >>>> Please note aware, the version of httpclient we’ve been using has also
> >>>> been constant:
> >>>>
> >>>> <dependency>
> >>>>       <groupId>org.apache.httpcomponents</groupId>
> >>>>       <artifactId>httpclient</artifactId>
> >>>>       <version>4.5.2</version>
> >>>> </dependency>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ron DiFrango
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2/13/17, 11:44 AM, "DiFrango, Ronald" <Ronald.DiFrango@capitalone.
> com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>   This is running in Tomcat 8.0.33 in a Docker Container via AWS’s ECS
> >>>> which is identical to before with log4j2 2.5.
> >>>>
> >>>>   We’ve run the application with Visual VM and the one thing for sure
> >>>> that we’ve seen is that in 2.6.2 it created tons of threads,
> something like
> >>>> 50+ but on 2.6 or 2.7 it was only 2.  Now the threads were short
> lived, but
> >>>> they got created.
> >>>>
> >>>>   We’re running another performance test today with Async loggers to
> see
> >>>> if that helps or exhibits the same thing though previous testing with
> Async
> >>>> had some of the same char
> >>>>
> >>>>   Here’s our layout pattern:
> >>>>
> >>>>          [%t] %d{DATE} %-5p %-15c{1} [%X]: %cm%n
> >>>>
> >>>>   Please not the %cm is a custom message handler that we use to use to
> >>>> handle security filtering of the message payload aka we extend from
> >>>> LogEventPatternConverter.
> >>>>
> >>>>   Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>>   Ron DiFrango
> >>>>
> >>>>   On 2/13/17, 11:22 AM, "Matt Sicker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>       What server environment are you running this in?
> >>>>
> >>>>       On 13 February 2017 at 09:19, Remko Popma <
> [email protected]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Ron,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We haven't heard of any issues like you describe.
> >>>>> Have you tried running your application with Java Flight Recorder
> >>>>> <https://docs.oracle.com/javacomponents/jmc-5-4/jfr-
> >>>>> runtime-guide/run.htm#JFRUH176>?
> >>>>> This should help diagnose what is going on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Remko
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 9:59 PM, DiFrango, Ronald <
> >>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We recently upgrade to 2.6 and noticed a dramatic increase in
> >>>> CPU and
> >>>>>> Thread utilization that seems to be tied to the new “garbage
> >>>> free” mode
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>> log4j  2.6.  Here’s some of the baseline numbers:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ·         Log4j 2.5: CPU typically ran around 25%
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ·         Log4j 2.6: CPU typically ran around 75%
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ·         Log4j 2.6.2+: CPU typically ran around 100%
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ·         We’ve also tried turning off garbage free mode and
> >>>> that made
> >>>>>> things worse as the CPU was around 120% and caused us to not
> >>>> meet our
> >>>>> SLA’s
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It important to note that this is a REST Api using Jersey and
> >>>> typically
> >>>>>> responds in about in under 50ms on a per request so its high
> >>>> volume, but
> >>>>>> the logging level is WARN or higher except for our single
> >>>> performance log
> >>>>>> record which is written once per request using the lambda base
> >>>> approach.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Our next test is going to be switching to all ASYNC loggers
> >>>> and see what
> >>>>>> effect that has, but I guess the general question is, has
> >>>> anyone else
> >>>>> seen
> >>>>>> this?  Any thoughts?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ron DiFrango
> >>>>>> ________________________________________________________
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or
> >>>>>> proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only
> >>>> be used
> >>>>>> solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The
> >>>>> information
> >>>>>> transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the
> >>>> individual or entity
> >>>>>> to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not
> >>>> the
> >>>>> intended
> >>>>>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
> >>>> retransmission,
> >>>>>> dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or
> >>>> taking of any
> >>>>>> action in reliance upon this information is strictly
> >>>> prohibited. If you
> >>>>>> have received this communication in error, please contact the
> >>>> sender and
> >>>>>> delete the material from your computer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>       --
> >>>>       Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>   ________________________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>>   The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or
> >>>> proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used
> >>>> solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The
> information
> >>>> transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or
> entity
> >>>> to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended
> >>>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission,
> >>>> dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any
> >>>> action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If
> you
> >>>> have received this communication in error, please contact the sender
> and
> >>>> delete the material from your computer.
> >>>>
> >>>>   ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >>>>   To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>>>   For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or
> >>>> proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used
> >>>> solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The
> information
> >>>> transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or
> entity
> >>>> to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended
> >>>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission,
> >>>> dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any
> >>>> action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If
> you
> >>>> have received this communication in error, please contact the sender
> and
> >>>> delete the material from your computer.
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   --
> >>>   Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________________________________
> >>>
> >>> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or
> proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used
> solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The information
> transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity
> to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission,
> dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any
> action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and
> delete the material from your computer.
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >>    To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>    For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________________________________
> >>
> >> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or
> proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used
> solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The information
> transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity
> to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission,
> dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any
> action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and
> delete the material from your computer.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker <[email protected]>

Reply via email to